Thanks again @tnorm and @ichiro for covering Pocket Network and Pocket DAO.
I may have missed it- were you able to dive into the backgrounds of the DAO members/voters in order to check under or over representation by any of the following groups?
-App Developers.
-Node Runners.
-Community Shepherds.
-Governor/Contributors.
Also, if over/under represented by members of a specific DAO contractor such as PNI or some other entity?
I have come across concerns in the channels that node runners dominate the voter population and therefore are in a position to thwart a proposal that may appear to hurt their interests in the short run but may be net positive for the overall network.
Similarly, an over represented entity could also vote in self-interest.
Just to make it clear, I do not have such data for Pocket DAO and therefore I am not arriving at any conclusions.
Incidentally, skewness could be because of the newness of the protocol and the DAO. The type of early network participants could end up being represented more in the DAO, and as the network diversifies, the hope is that the DAO shall follow.
Considering “fair representation” across “types of network participants (or interest groups)” alongside metrics such as proof of participation, Gini coefficient, etc could be complimentary in gauging health of the DAOs.
As working in self-interest by “groups” is fully understandable and expected, therefore maybe having certain checks and balances in place to ensure and maintain equitable representation could also be proposed.
Cc PNF: @b3n @Dermot @JackALaing @nelson @Ming